Is this knife legal to carry in Texas?

Status
Not open for further replies.
O

orangeninja

Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2003
Messages
3,117
the title says it all...oh BTW there is no exemption for CHL holders concerning knives....only guns.
Edited to add..this is a Becker neck knife with 3.5 inch blade.
 

Attachments

  • BKneck.jpg
    BKneck.jpg
    19.9 KB · Views: 193
Depends. Could a bonehead officer mistake it for a throwing knife?
 
Strictly speaking I would say yes. Just don't act like an idiot and you should likely never have a problem.
 
alduro said:
the title says it all...oh BTW there is no exemption for CHL holders concerning knives....only guns.
Edited to add..this is a Becker neck knife with 3.5 inch blade.
Click to expand...

No exemption, Don? Check this out:

Alright...we know what an illegal knife is. It's spelled out pretty plainly:

"§ 46.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(6) "Illegal[0] knife[0]" means a:
(A) knife[0] with a blade over five and one-half inches;
(B) hand instrument designed to cut or stab another by being thrown;
(C) dagger, including but not limited to a dirk, stilletto, and poniard;
(D) bowie knife[0];
(E) sword; or
(F) spear.
(7) "Knife[0]" means any bladed hand instrument that is capable of inflicting serious bodilyinjury or death by cutting or stabbing a person with the instrument."

So we have this regarding illegal knives:


"§ 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS. (a) A person
commits an offense if he intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly
carries on or about his person a handgun, illegal knife, or club.
(b) Except as provided by Subsection (c), an offense under
this section is a Class A misdemeanor."

OK...pretty straightforward, right?

But then:

"§ 46.15. NONAPPLICABILITY. (a) Sections 46.02 and
46.03 do not apply to:..."

Surprise!

"(6) is carrying a concealed handgun and a valid
license issued under Article 4413(29ee), Revised Statutes, to carry
a concealed handgun of the same category as the handgun the person
is carrying;"

Interesting, ain't it?

Discuss.
 
Assuming that it is not spelled out somewhere else that a CHL doesn't give you any special rights other than to carry a handgun, you MIGHT get away with that if you get a very tolerant judge. Clearly, that's not what the statute means.

Anyway, if you take the straight wording of the statute, it still doesn't allow you to carry an illegal knife with as a CHL holder UNLESS you are also carrying your pistol.
 
JohnKSa said:
Assuming that it is not spelled out somewhere else that a CHL doesn't give you any special rights other than to carry a handgun, you MIGHT get away with that if you get a very tolerant judge. Clearly, that's not what the statute means.

Anyway, if you take the straight wording of the statute, it still doesn't allow you to carry an illegal knife with as a CHL holder UNLESS you are also carrying your pistol.
Click to expand...

Right, but it does say exactly that. Precisely that.

The text of the law is straightforward and plain.
 
Right, but the operative word in my post was "judge".

You might be able to defend yourself in court, but IMO, you've already lost by the time you're in that position.
 
My point is that there is an exemption there in black and white. You just read it.

Txinvestigator argues the point on more than one board, BTW.

If an LEO decides that the law doesn't say what it says, that's another thing entirely. Different discussion.

I ain't gonna be the test case, either way.
 
The REALLY interesting part is that "my" exemption, you'll note, is number 6.

The exemption that the cops in alduro's link agree to is number 4.

In other words, its the same portion of the law.

You can carry an illegal knife if:

"(4) is engaging in lawful hunting, fishing, or other
sporting activity on the immediate premises where the activity is
conducted, or is directly en route between the premises and the
actor's residence, if the weapon is a type commonly used in the
activity;"

or if

"6) is carrying a concealed handgun and a valid
license issued under Article 4413(29ee), Revised Statutes, to carry
a concealed handgun of the same category as the handgun the person
is carrying;"

It says it plain as day.
 
My point is that there is an exemption there in black and white. You just read it.
Click to expand...
The law CAN be read the way you intend it to be read (i.e. if you have a CHL AND are carrying a concealed handgun you are allowed to carry any other illegal weapons you want), but a judge could just as easily read the part about "is carrying a concealed handgun" to mean that it ONLY applies to carrying concealed handguns.

Or, he could just ask you to read what it says on your Concealed Handgun License and then ask you what part of "Concealed Handgun License" you didn't understand. ;)

Like I said, you MIGHT get away with it if you get a tolerant judge, but that's the extent of it. It's certainly not something any rational person should gamble on. Remember, it's a common misconception that judges are bound by the LETTER of the law. They're not.
 
Oh, I wouldnt do it. Trust me. I firmly believe the law intends that it only applies to handguns.

As far as the English language is concerned though, there is zero wiggle room. It says exactly what it says.

To paraphrase:

The law against carrying an illegal knife, club or CCW does not apply in the following conditions....and then it lays down conditions.

Number 4 is if you are engaged in lawful hunting or fishing. If you carry a pistol while hunting, a knife longer than 5 1/2 inches while fishing or hunting, or a club while shark fishing (all are commonly accepted practices), you are dependent on this exemption.

Number 6 is if you have a CHL and are also carrying a pistol.
 
poignard.jpg


Pointy thrusting dagger.
 
As far as the English language is concerned though, there is zero wiggle room. It says exactly what it says.
Click to expand...
This is rarely true of ANY sentence written in English--even less so with lawyers involved. ;)

It could just as easily be read to mean that the phrase "is carrying a concealed handgun" is exclusively qualifying what kind of illegal weapon is being carried/may be carried with a CHL. The judge could say--"But the law doesn't say the 46.02 is not applicable for someone carrying a concealed handgun and a CHL AND an illegal knife. It only says it's not applicable if you're carrying a concealed handgun and a CHL."

Given the terribly unambiguous designation of the CHL it's obvious that your reading of the law is not what it is intended to convey. Furthermore, while there is some basis for supporting your interpretation, it's not consistent with the rest of the law as it concerns CHLs. That's going to make it a very hard sell.

Absolute best case, IMO, would be that you get off and they fix the law next legislative session.
 
kdid I read this right???

Just cruising through this discussion; it's interesting, but then i was brought up all standing.

Let me get this straight: a BOWIEknife is illegal in TEXAS????

That's just wrong! It may be true but it's wrong, wrong wrong. Make wolverines illegal in Michigan, declare the badger as vermin in Wisconsin, let Missouri legislate the Missouri mule a common pest. Ye gods and little fishes!

What can the legislature have been thinking???
 
The answer to what they were thinking can be understood much better if you look at WHEN these laws were passed...

They were supposed to prevent freedmen from being armed in public.
 
Also, what is the definition of Bowie knife?

Is it any clipped point fixed-blade? Or does it have to have a sharpened swedge?

TX law is liberal with respect to long guns and concealed handguns, but that's about it...

On the other hand, what more do you really need? :)
 
JohnKSa said:
This is rarely true of ANY sentence written in English--even less so with lawyers involved. ;)

It could just as easily be read to mean that the phrase "is carrying a concealed handgun" is exclusively qualifying what kind of illegal weapon is being carried/may be carried with a CHL. The judge could say--"But the law doesn't say the 46.02 is not applicable for someone carrying a concealed handgun and a CHL AND an illegal knife. It only says it's not applicable if you're carrying a concealed handgun and a CHL."

Given the terribly unambiguous designation of the CHL it's obvious that your reading of the law is not what it is intended to convey. Furthermore, while there is some basis for supporting your interpretation, it's not consistent with the rest of the law as it concerns CHLs. That's going to make it a very hard sell.

Absolute best case, IMO, would be that you get off and they fix the law next legislative session.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you said regarding legislative intent, but "Does not apply to" followed by a specific circumstance pretty plain.

As noted before, I dont want to be the test case.
 
"(6) is carrying a concealed handgun and a valid
license issued under Article 4413(29ee), Revised Statutes, to carry
a concealed handgun of the same category as the handgun the person
is carrying;"

You find yourself in court facing charges for carrying illegal weapons and at the time of your arrest you were carrying your pistol and CHL, a pocket knife, an automatic Uzi, a sword. The judge will treat this the same is if you were carrying many controlled drugs and only had a prescription for one of them. The exemption will be applied item by item for each weapon you were found carrying.

Pistol = A handgun which may be licensed under Art.4413, legal to be carried with your CHL.

Automatic Uzi = Not a "concealed handgun of the same catagory as the handgun the person is carrying."

Sword = Not a "concealed handgun of the same catagory as the handgun the person is carrying." In fact, not a handgun at all.

Pocket knife = Legal under the circumstances.

---
Middy said:
TX law is liberal with respect to long guns and concealed handguns, but that's about it...

On the other hand, what more do you really need? :)
Click to expand...

A knife! And to figure out what I can legally carry when a firearm is not permitted such as when at a post office or bank, or when carrying a firearm is simply not practical.

I go running late at night, through some unfenced neighborhoods and through some country. Lots of stray dogs roam my town, many of them large and unfriendly protective or fighting dogs that frequently escape their chains. Pepper spray is not effective against pit bulls and rottweilers, and I really don't want to strap a bulky, heavy pistol with me on a 4-8 mile run. So, for my self-defense, the most practical thing to carry is a large knife capable of killing a big dog in the unlikely event that one decided to attack me.

I used to carry a nice little solid-piece Teflon S&W with a 5" double-edged blade in one hand, and a tiny LED light in the other. Until I looked up this thread, I had no idea that all this time when I've gone out running at 3am and the cops pass me slowly with their spotlights on that I was so close to being arrested. What is it about double-edged blades that needs to be illegal? And all this time I figured it was better than taking my KA-BAR because its blade is shorter... :eek:
 
Smokey Joe said:
Let me get this straight: a BOWIE knife is illegal in TEXAS????

That's just wrong! It may be true but it's wrong, wrong wrong. Make wolverines illegal in Michigan, declare the badger as vermin in Wisconsin, let Missouri legislate the Missouri mule a common pest. Ye gods and little fishes!

What can the legislature have been thinking???
Click to expand...
Middy said:
Also, what is the definition of Bowie knife?

Is it any clipped point fixed-blade? Or does it have to have a sharpened swedge?
Click to expand...
A Bowie knife is a weapon with a single edge which has been clipped in such a way that provides for a stabbing point at the tip of the blade.

I feel the same way Smokey Joe does about the symbolic significance of Bowie knives in Texas... however... these are probably illegal to carry in public for the same reason that daggers and spears are illegal. That is, their function. The ONLY reason they have the shape they do is for stabbing purposes and cannot be justifiably carried around as a "utility" knife.
They are designed to be weapons--to kill things--not to cut rope, ect. This law is also written to be applicable to arrowheads if you'll notice. However, as Thumper noted earlier, these blades CAN be used for hunting and the law makes clear exception for their concealed carry in those circumstances.

But... :banghead:

Despite the logic behind it, when held in comparison to the laws regarding firearms, it does seem like a pretty contrary and obsolete way of thinking...
 
You guys do realize that you've revived a thread that has been dead for over 3 years and that the folks who originally participated in it may not even be around any more?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
decent knife for the money
Replies
20
Views
2K
Mudinyeri
M
1
  • Locked
Concealed knife carry laws
Replies
12
Views
4K
hso
hso
T
  • Locked
Texas sized knife
Replies
4
Views
794
tiberius
T
T
  • Locked
Texas legal knives?
Replies
6
Views
752
JohnKSa
JohnKSa
C
  • Locked
I need a knife recomendation (for defence)
2
Replies
28
Views
1K
22-rimfire
2
Back
Top